Tonight, the Discovery Channel unveiled its fascinating new show, Curiosity. It will be my favorite pop show, along side of Hawking’s Into The Universe. The discerning mind however, just as was necessary with Isaac Asimov’s popular explorations of science in another generation, must be employed.

Why? Worldview is everywhere. Just because we like something, or it has great graphics and storytelling, doesn’t mean it’s all true. The topic – “Does God Exist?” opened the show, and physicist Stephen Hawking, along with a cast of theistic, agnostic and atheistic scientists (and one theologian) reflect on this fundamental question.

First, Hawking articulates the conclusion “We don’t need God for this universe to have been created.” He goes on, “…And any idea of heaven, or afterlife, does not exist.” Of course, Hawking is presented over and against those who declare him a heretic.

Then, the roots of our understandings of God, god or gods in primal times were explored. Belief in supernatural meaning being applied to mysterious events, was of course, debunked. With a little knowledge, the Vikings could have been more, more, … like us. The reasoning of the Greeks and Aristarchus’ questioning of the gods causing eclipses, is touted as a moment of “liberation.”

Hawking is right. The “God of the Gaps” is a dysfunctional way to dig into faith. Some things may be explained – but “why” is a question that will always exist.

He then goes on to discuss the “Laws Of Nature,” not saying why they exist, but that they exist and replace God. Their cause is not explained – just that they do. Welcome to lack of application of the question once again – “Why?”

“Laws govern,” Hawking says, “Not God.”

Second, fellow scientists from different backgrounds speak.

I won’t take the time to articulate their positions. Astrophysicists, Cosmologists, Physicists and Theologians spoke, from a variety of perspectives.

How Fellow Scientists Responded.

How fellow scientists from a variety of viewpoints responded to Hawking’s claims was fascinating.

One was left with the sense that Hawking’s big statements about cause and meaning – to his fellow scientists – were made by a private human being. I.e. They did not affirm that his statements of meaning were speaking, necessarily, for the scientific community.

Fascinating.

What We Saw.

Now, I am a Theist (and a Christian), and at the same time hold a high regard for science. My cards are on the table. I’ve been entranced by two things since I was young – by the stars, and by spirituality.

Both captivated me, spun me around, and became the pivot points for most of my inner conversation (and outer) throughout life. I felt atoms in my bones, music in my heart, and an encounter in my soul, since before I could articulate what was going on.

But that is not what we’re here to talk about – what happened in the show?

Hawking spoke brilliantly about “What and How.” ( "O quê?" e "Como?")

Then, he began to conjecture about “Why,” and “Meaning” as if it were a scientific conclusion – a strange direction for a man so committed to the language of objectivity and the scientific method. (Muito bom!)

As the scientists were interviewed, it was clear: Every scientist represented seemed somewhat uncomfortable with the conclusions Hawking was voicing about God and the afterlife. Some were directly uncomfortable with his definitive conclusions; all were somewhat uncomfortable that he was making them as a scientist. He was explicitly changing the scientific game, and taking it into the realm of fact statements about unknown metaphysics. (arrebentou aqui!)

When people make fact statements about things they simply don’t know about, we call them ignorant, or worse yet, fundamentalists.Science itself, for some of those on the panel, was in danger.

In other words…

Stephen Hawking was making a faith statement based on his knowledge. First, let me say that is the best way to make a faith statement. Many theists could use a strong dose of curiosity and exploration to overtake dogmatism. I include myself when suggesting that others take that prescription. We can all learn more.

Back to the discussion. For Hawking, his definition of God required that God create the universe. Doing his math and physics, he felt he didn’t need God to explain this particular universe. For his metaphysical money, he felt that if any alternate (and to him, more simple and elegant) way of describing universal origins could be presented, within the realm of scientific integrity, that would disprove God’s existence.

There is only one problem – an alternate story doesn’t make it true – it just makes it an alternate story. Faith in anything, at the beginning of the show, was presented as primal and outdated (the Vikings and the Wolf swallowing the sun in a solar eclipse). Now, Hawking was presenting his own “faith” story, albeit based on his gathering of knowledge to date. (Arrebentou!)

The scientists were then welcomed to speak – atheists, agnostics and theists.

All of them, to a person, came back to this. Hawking would sacrifice the objectivity of science to conjecture like this. He was not making science statements, but rather faith statements (non-faith statements in this case, about things which he doesn’t actually know like the gravitational pull of planets or the stoppage of time in a black hole).

In fact, the laws that create not just one universe, but the possibilities of multiverses (multiple universes), are still a mystery. String theory welcomes this mystery. One scientist asked, “Where did those laws come from, and why do they work?”. Words like elegance, majesty, magnificence and beauty flew around the table, but the question of “Why” kept eluding them. Miracles and strange metaphysics were put on the table. More “whys” were considered.

But ultimately, whether various approaches seem more logical, or intuitive, or neither, the following statement is true when it comes to the cause behind this awe-inspiring cosmos:

“Everyone Has Faith In Something.”

Atheism takes faith.

Theism takes faith.

Make no mistake, life is a leap of faith. One’s evidence is math for their leap of faith. Another’s is an encounter, a story, an experience, an epiphany. No one knows exactly what the afterlife, if it exists, will be like. It takes faith to believe it exists. It takes faith to not believe it exists.

Faith has clues, and ancient stories, behind it, dating back to the beginnings of humankind. For some, the diversity of those stories disproves them. For others, threads are visible in those stories, and they wind back to primal truth – not superstition.

(Note: Having said this, every faith must be weighed on its own merits, and not lumped in with every other spiritual system. There are many ways to govern a nation – but not all of them are alike and we would do well to tease their stories and results apart to discover one that seems to rise above the others. I.e. All faiths are not the same. their creational and redemptive stories are radically different, and must be weighed.)

For Hawking, and some scientists (so important – many of the world’s greatest scientists are theists), just as protons can “pop” into being, so too a universe (or multiverse) can “pop” into being. Let’s get this straight. A meaningless “popping into existence” or a meaningful “popping into existence” (a naturally occurring phenomenon or a naturally occurring phenomenon catalyzed by the Will of God) both take faith to embrace.

You can overlay your own meaning, or lack thereof, onto your facts. We can overlay almost any meaning on any fact. The motives behind the meaning we attribute may be more important to study than the fact. Stephen should have said this, but he didn’t. Some of his fellow scientists alluded to it though. They felt the hole in the logic as it appeared. Science is in danger of losing its role when it ventures into statements of meaning.

In my mind, Stephen’s story is compelling, but not in contradiction to faith. For my part, Hawking’s discussion actually led me to greater belief in God, not away.

[...] Even a child knows that a new discovery doesn’t make you the author of anything.

It only makes you a discoverer.

::

One of my favorite Cosmologists is George Ellis. His writing and activities as a cosmologist (who worked with Hawking and stood for justice in his native South Africa) are worth studying.

“The Sun, with all the planets revolving around it, and depending on it, can still ripen a bunch of grapes as though it had nothing else in the Universe to do.” Galileo Galilei (Natural Philosopher, Mathematician and Astronomer – 1564-1642)